poking around EvC came up with this

Here's a thread from EvC forums titled "written in the year 5767," begun by JAR with the example of a frozen mummified man, "Oetzi," who was determined by "science" to have lived 5300 years ago, which is impossible if the Flood occurred 4500 years ago, as the Biblical timeline suggests.

There is one well known place where we can look to see if there is ANY reality to the assertion of some super-genome and that is with Oetzi the Iceman.
What do we know about Oetzi?

First he was both contemporary with Adam and likely a Grandson.

He lived about 5300 years ago and so Adam was still alive.

His mitochondrial DNA is from the haplogroup K.

He was born and his childhood was near the present town of Feldthurns in what today is Italy, but then moved about 50 km south.

He was around 40-50 years old when he died.

He had eaten twice recently, one Chamois, the other Red Deer meat along with fruit and grain, likely bread.

His shoes were composite, soles of bear skin, uppers deerhide. They were insulated with grasses.

There was blood from four other people on him.

Pollen showed that he ate his last meal in a mid altitude conifer forest and that it was spring time.

The biggest thing is that NOTHING was very different. There were NO signs of some Super-Genome in his makeup, the makeup of the other people, the critters or food, the materials used.

So, if there was some super-genome, why are there no signs of it in the people, animals, plants, spores and pollen contemporary with Adam?

This opening post is a list of assertions of supposed fact about this man that are not fact at all, but interpretations, with the exception of the statement about his shoes. This is typical of how evolution-type "science" is done.

I spend much of my own first few posts simply identifying this fact, that he has not given facts but only interpretations, and I ask for the facts upon which the interpretations were based -- a very straightforward and you would think easily accommodated request. But he doesn't give any; instead he starts interrogating me. Typical evasive tactic, especially by that particular poster, JAR.

First he was both contemporary with Adam and likely a Grandson.

[Faith]I would say, no, this is definitely not something you could KNOW about a mummified man, this is obviously interpretation. What is actually KNOWN about him? Perhaps that he was a certain height, had eaten certain foods, was dressed in a certain kind of garb, was found with certain items, these are the sort of things that can be actually KNOWN and even in these things there is room for error.

Age you cannot know, you can only speculate based on certain physical facts. What are those facts?

This is the most frustrating thing about reports from the sciences that follow the ToE, that the sheer facts are often not given but only the interpretation of them.

He lived about 5300 years ago and so Adam was still alive.

You cannot KNOW this, but only infer it from what are probably rather scanty facts. Please give all the kinds of evidence that were used to determine how long ago he lived.

His mitochondrial DNA is from the haplogroup K.

What does this mean and what are the implications of this classification? What condition was his DNA in? Were good samples obtainable or only fragments? How certain are the results of the analysis?

He was born and his childhood was near the present town of Feldthurns in what today is Italy, but then moved about 50 km south.

This is clearly quite complex interpretation of some simple physical facts. What are the simple physical facts and how did they lead to this complex interpretation? How can anybody think about what you are saying if you don't give the foundations of your interpretation? All this does is create mystification in the reader.

He was around 40-50 years old when he died.

This is no doubt based on particular physical facts too. Please provide. It shouldn't be hard to give good evidence in this case.

He had eaten twice recently, one Chamois, the other Red Deer meat along with fruit and grain, likely bread.

Yes, I read a discussion of this. Analysis of stomach contents. Not absolutely certain nevertheless, but likely.

His shoes were composite, soles of bear skin, uppers deerhide. They were insulated with grasses.

Now THAT is an actual fact for a change. I knew you had it in you! It could be more precisely stated of course -- "On his feet were found ... " etc. But I'll let you get away with that. A real fact! I'm SO happy.

There was blood from four other people on him.

Um, does this mean that there were minuscule spots and splotches of something found on and about him that when analyzed in a laboratory appeared to be human blood of four different types?

Pollen showed that he ate his last meal in a mid altitude conifer forest and that it was spring time.

Plausible but still interpretive. How can you be sure that the pollen got into his stomach while he was eating his meal or had perhaps traveled some distance with him first?

The biggest thing is that NOTHING was very different. There were NO signs of some Super-Genome in his makeup, the makeup of the other people, the critters or food, the materials used.

But it is more likely that the dating of him was WAY off.

So, if there was some super-genome, why are there no signs of it in the people, animals, plants, spores and pollen contemporary with Adam?

Well, the idea of the super genome is simply the most likely interpretation based on what we know from the Bible, but it could of course be wrong and need rethinking. But Oetzi doesn't prove much really since it's just the usual imaginative construction from who knows what.

How would you know what "animals, plants, spores and pollen" were "contemporary with Adam" anyway? Nothing in the above even discusses the age of these items or how they were analyzed. Nothing. Perhaps you could supply some discussion of the thinking that arrived at this conclusion, and the facts that were taken into account.

ALSO, other bodies have been found in this same glacier that were dated much later. A discussion of the differences between them and Oetzi -- the actual physical facts I mean -- might be most illuminating.

Then he picks on one of the nonfactual points, about how they determined the age of the mummy and of course it's by radiocarbon dating which is known to be unreliable, and to my mind the whole thread is already over. Too bad because it would have been nice just once at EvC to have a completely rational conversation about the actual evidence. And it would have been nice to get into just what Oetzi's genome looked like since the whole point of the thread is JAR's argument that there never was a super-genome, which is one of the hypotheses creationists come up with (but that's a whole other angle on the evolution debate I haven't begun to discuss yet).

Perhaps I'll explore this topic some more here, apart from the ridiculous frustrations imposed on me by the "scientific" minds at EvC who wouldn't know what evidence is if it bit them.